I suppose this is the same problem that faces anyone working in a
relatively new area of study. A severe lack of reference points - and those
that do exist, you discover, are built upon foundations of sand. If you are
lucky. Whenever I give a talk or present a paper I always make a joke of the
point that I tend to use the term 'the current theory is', or 'it appears
likely', rather a lot. Sadly I'm not joking. Think about it. Here we are, faced
with a massive new corpus of medieval material, with almost no reference
points. There's only ever been one book published on the subject; and even the
author herself admitted that that particular work was hardly blemish free. We
are blindfold, in the dark, groping from one hand-hold to the next. Can it get
any more difficult? Well, yes, it can actually. It gets worse at the point when
you realise that the hand-holds you were using to guide you actually turn out
to be as insubstantial as smoke. That all the 'taken as reads' haven't been,
and that all the accepted wisdom actually refers to the same untruth or
misconception just being repeated long enough and often enough.
So where do we start? At which point do we begin to pull out bricks and
see just how many we can remove before the structure collapses around our ears?
Mason's marks? Pilgrim crosses? Medieval board games on the walls? Nope. Let's
begin where it all began. Where the study of graffiti inscriptions, in a rather
odd manner, actually began - with Mass Dials.
Now just about everybody who has taken the time to wander around a few
medieval churches will have come across these distinctive little markings. Also
known as 'scratch dials', they are most usually to be found on the south side
of the church, scratched in to a buttress, sometimes near the priest's door
into the chancel and quite often inside the porch. The traditional
interpretation is that these are simple sundials; designed to inform the
congregation of the time that the daily mass would begin. They are also one of
the few areas of inscriptions in church fabric that have received any level of
formal study. Indeed, there is a whole sub-group of the British Sundial society
that goes around and records these early timepieces - and therein lies part of
the problem.
Putting aside the question of dating these inscriptions, where
tradition states that the cruder the manner of execution the earlier they are
likely to be (based upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever as far as I can
see), the real problems begin to occur when you examine the traditional
interpretation as to their use. They are, in many instances, very clearly
sundials - designed to mark off the hours. However, there are rather a lot of
examples that simply don't fit the pattern - and raise some really quite
interesting questions. In the first place there are those actually found within
porches - most usually carved into the framework of the south door. The
traditional interpretation is that these were actually in place prior to the
porch being erected. Then there are those on the north side of the church;
where tradition states that the stone has most probably been moved or re-used.
Then there are those found inside the church itself - where tradition states
that the stone has again been moved or re-used. That, in short, is rather a lot
of 'tradition' - and appears to be a very convenient way of avoiding asking
some really quite important questions.
Just examining one particular site can highlight exactly how weak the
traditional interpretation really is. Let's take one church - Worthing in
Norfolk - a tiny and isolated church set in the Wensum valley. The church is an
ancient one, with a round tower and many early Norman features, that has seen
much change and alteration over the centuries. On the south side, now covered
by a late medieval porch, is a most striking and beautiful early Norman doorway
- into which are inscribed at least three mass dials. Yes, you heard me - at
least three. Ok, so let us agree with a little tradition - and assume the mass
dials were inscribed prior to the porch being built (see, I can be reasonable).
Why then are there three identical dials? All appear to be to the same
standard, and incised in a similar manner - so why do you need more than one?
What are they doing? Showing the time in London, Rome and Jerusalem? I think
not.
And it isn't just at Worthing that these supposedly simple dials don't
fit in to the traditional story. I see too many examples of multiple dials,
dials set on the north side of the church, or even inside, to believe that all
of these are re-used or moved bits of stone. The weight of actual observed
evidence would appear to be leaning against a convenient tradition. Yes, many
of these are simple time-keepers located in the right place - but many, many
others don't fit the pattern.
So what is going on? What was the function of these familiar markings
on our medieval churches? Well, to be honest, I really can't say. I can make a
few suggestions based upon what I have observed, but I don't have any hard and
fast answers. Not yet anyway. All I can say is that the traditional and
accepted ideas associated with them are no longer, if you'll excuse the pun,
set in stone. We have to throw tradition out of the tracery window and begin to
look at the actual evidence with fresh eyes. We have to begin to question what
has remained unquestionable and no longer accept 'accepted wisdom'.
And don't even get me started on pilgrim crosses...
For them to be actual sundials they would also need the gnomon or style to be at the right angle (latitude of the place) and not at right angles to the stone as seen in the picture provided here as the central hole seems to depict!!! Also why would there be a circle instead of a semi circle which is usually the case in sundials. So what are your thoughts on these dials if you could elaborate on that a bit? Thanks for sharing your informative ideas.
ReplyDeleteI came across this inscription, maybe it is interesting http://archaeology.org/news/2326-140722-spain-celtic-inscription-deciphered How do think about it? could this be a genuine inscription, or is this a hoax?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say a hoax - as the inscription appears to have been known about for a while - but they now claim to be able to transcribe it. Reading inscriptions on stone is very different from vellum or parchment. As the light changes so too does the inscription. However, in this case I'd be a little doubtful on a couple of levels. Firstly they suddenly claim to be able to read a very worn inscription that has baffled others. Secondly, even if it is Gaelic, then their logic is twisted. It need not be 14th century at all. It could have been created at just about any period 'subsequent' to the 14th century. Indeed, it could just as well be 19th or 20th century in origin.
Delete